The reading and lecture are both about professor appearing on the TV. The author of the reading feels that there are several reasons why professor should appear on the TV. The lecture challenges this point made by the lecturer. She is of the opinion that professor does not get any benefit from appearing in the Tv.
To begin with, the author argues that when professors appears on TV, he will get a reputation. In the article it says that viewer will understand and will have more idea about academic. This point is challenged by the lecturer. She claims that professor might tend to get reputation among fellows. Additionally, she says that professor job is not for entertainment. To do so he might face difficult to get the money for research.
Secondly, the writers suggests that university will be benefit from professor coming LIVE in the tv. In the reading, it is said that university might receive positive comment and reviews, and university reputation would increase when someone from the university appears on the TV. The lecturer, however, rebut this by mentioning that to represent in the public it would take professor times, where he can used this time in the college with his students.
Finally, the author posits that it would be good chance for viewers to learn new knowledge. Moreover, it states that most of the public wouldn’t be in contact with professor. So, they can learn things from the TV. In contrast, the lecturer's position is that the professor show would be deeper into academic style, which public might find difficult to understand.
She notes that other anchor would be doing their homework on academic to present, so it wouldn't make any difference professor being on the TV.
The reading and lecture are both about
professor
appearing on the TV. The author of the reading feels that there are several reasons why
professor
should appear on the TV.
The
lecture challenges this point made by the lecturer. She is of the opinion that
professor
does not
get
any benefit from appearing in the
Tv
.
To
begin
with, the author argues that when
professors
appears
on TV, he will
get
a reputation. In the article it says that viewer will understand and will have more
idea
about academic. This point
is challenged
by the lecturer. She claims that
professor
might
tend to
get
reputation among fellows.
Additionally
, she says that
professor
job is not for entertainment. To do
so
he
might
face difficult to
get
the money for research.
Secondly
, the writers suggests that
university
will be benefit from
professor
coming
LIVE
in the
tv
. In the reading, it
is said
that
university
might
receive
positive
comment and reviews, and
university
reputation would increase when someone from the
university
appears on the TV. The lecturer,
however
,
rebut
this by mentioning that to represent in the public it would take
professor
times, where he can
used
this time in the college with his students.
Finally
, the author posits that it would be
good
chance for viewers to learn new knowledge.
Moreover
, it states that most of the public wouldn’t be in contact with
professor
.
So
, they can learn things from the TV.
In contrast
, the lecturer's position is that the
professor
show
would be deeper into academic style, which public
might
find difficult to understand.
She notes that other anchor would be doing their homework on academic to present,
so
it wouldn't
make
any difference
professor
being on the TV.